@Dan Zervos You do know that the big hatches for driver and ball gunner and the loaders hatch, were first installed December 1943? And a great number of Shermans still did not have them in Normandy. Before that all three man in the turret had to go through the commanders hatch. There was a reason why the Shermans were called "Tommy Cooker" in North Africa 1942. The losses of British and Canadian sherman crews were twice as high as the US sherman tank crew losses. They had to face strong german tank forces more often than the US forces. It was a British or a Canadian tanker who nocked out Wittman. The US boys had to face Tiger tanks only 4 times in the west european campaign.
That engine is the GM 671 two-cycle diesel used exclusively in the M4A2 Sherman. They were given via lend lease to the British and Russians. And yes, since they were two-cycle diesels, they used GM roots-type super chargers. They were installed in pairs as a twin diesel assembly. Diesels can be tough to start in cold weather (as in Russia) so they were equipped with a fire box where gasoline was burned to preheat the engine to assist in those cold weather starts.
Actually the engine is a GM 6046 Twin Diesel. Two Detroit Diesel engines side-by-side tied together with an output gear box to combine the power to one output shaft to the drive train.
Judging by the reservoir tanks, its a GM Model 6046 diesel. Meaning its a M4A2. Due to the suspension and the 'ultimate' hull layout, its a M4A2(76)W HVSS.
Hmmmmm, statistically it was 25 times better ( or even higher in some cases) to be a Sherman crew member than the crew of any German tank or even the pbi!
Looks like this cut away Sherman had the two Detroit 6-71 diesels. Some had a radial engine or a massive ford 1100ci V8 engine. I can't see the Diesel powered Sherman as dangerous as the other two (radial and V8 Ford) which used a high octane aviation fuel?, I could be wrong.
Wow, it's pretty bad to see museums repeating the BS Ronson line. Sherman burn rates were very similar to most other tanks of the time. Then they were switched over to wet ammo stowage and the burn rates dropped significantly. I would have hoped a museum was capable of basic research.
The rising Collins Foundation and Museum of the American G.I. seems to be the competent ones here as far as the M4 history goes. A lot less inaccuracy and _Deathtraps_ lore with them. As was the Portola Valley Military Vehicle Technology Foundation so I heard until it closed, unfortunately never got to see it myself before the collection was broken up.
@Dan Zervos You do know that the big hatches for driver and ball gunner and the loaders hatch, were first installed December 1943? And a great number of Shermans still did not have them in Normandy. Before that all three man in the turret had to go through the commanders hatch. There was a reason why the Shermans were called "Tommy Cooker" in North Africa 1942. The losses of British and Canadian sherman crews were twice as high as the US sherman tank crew losses. They had to face strong german tank forces more often than the US forces. It was a British or a Canadian tanker who nocked out Wittman. The US boys had to face Tiger tanks only 4 times in the west european campaign.
How odd that the engine is the GM 6046 and not either the radial or the GAA. Was this cutaway originally used for overseas troops maybe? The 6046 was rarely used in US use Shermans
In the Sherman the driver and assistant had their own hatches. There were two hatches on top the turret. One on either side of the gun. An escape hatch as in the tank floor.
More bad information ... this time being repeated by a "museum" no less !!!! First off the Ronson lighter company did not use the slogan "lights every time until AFTER the war ..... throughout the 1920s, 1930s and the War years, the Ronson slogan was ......."Press it's Lit ..... Release it's Out" or "Flip it's Lit ...... Release it's Out" ........... the phrase "lights every time" did not appear in a Ronson advertisement until Late 1949 in a full page layout in "The Saturday Evening Post". No person has ever produced any documentation of the name "Ronson" being applied to the M4 Sherman tank ***during the war***. Except that Canadian Tankers *affectionately* called their flamethrower equipped M4s "Ronsons" ..... partly due to the fact that the flame thrower equipment itself was known as "The Ronson Flame Projector". 2nd ..... There was NEVER a problem with the fuel or engines on the M4. Any person claiming that the fuel caused M4s to "burst into flames" is full of hogwash........period. In 1943 the US Army investigated the "Burning M4s" question, and determined that in every case the cause was the ammunition. Most if not all "Burned" M4s were recovered with completely intact fuel tanks and operable engines. It was this study which brought about the "W" wet stowage improvement on later M4s ....... this was a modification where water jackets were placed around the ammunition stowage bins so that any penetration would release the water to douse the shells with water and prevent flash fires. This system worked so well that "W" modified M4s became the LEAST LIKELY tank of the war to burn when penetrated by enemy fire. Did the Germans call the M4 a "Tommy Cooker" ?? ......... Yes ! That name was earned by the British command structure which never informed their tank crews that the incorrect stowage of ammunition was the root cause of the high number of M4s "Burning" when penetrated by enemy fire. The British High Command continued to let their tank crews believe .....falsely .... that the fuel and engine were somehow the root problem, even though this had been proven by the US Army study of 1943 to not be the case. Brit tank crews continued to carry more ammunition than could be safely stored and suffered the consequences of flash fires from the propellants being ignited by hot shell fragments from penetrations.
C JACKSON you are wrong or you are lying...www.amazon.com/Ronson-cigarette-lighter-Broadway-Limited/dp/B00LNHDO3E take a look 1929 a ronson advertisement
Jose Romero I find this extremely interesting ...... that advert is *extremely* similar to the advert in the Saturday Evening Post 1949 which according to the American Advertising Museum was the earliest "Ronson" ad they had seen which used the phrase "Lights every time". Have you asked TIME to validate the dating ? I will endeavor to research it further ......
Casca Longinus higher octane means the fuel can withstand a higher pressure before combusting under the pressure high octane doesn't mean highly flammable most these myths come from "Death Traps'
No, it was one of SEVERAL power units used in the Sherman family. The engine is designated by the model number. All M4A2s were built with this diesel engine. Here is a good overview: th-cam.com/video/Z88gEaY0BeY/w-d-xo.html
***** You are confusing the M4 for the T34. The M4 Never had a problem with fuel or engine fires. The US Army study of 1943 proved that it was an ammunition stowage problem and that most "burned" M4s were recovered with completely intact fuel tanks. and just in case you have some delusion about using gasoline engines in tanks, the Germans used gasoline engines in all of their tanks. The Soviet Union was the only nation which fielded a majority of diesel engine tanks. Was diesel safer than gasoline? Possibly, but not in the war experience of the diesel engined T34. The T34, which had unarmored fuel tanks located INSIDE the crew compartment ignited and burned at a rate that any other army would have found completely unacceptable. 82% of T34s that were penetrated by enemy shells burned ....... but wait .... that is not all .... not only did they burn, but they also EXPLODED ! A Soviet high command (STAVKA) study on the "exploding T34s problem" determined: 1.... the internal fuel tanks built up pressure and exploded when penetrated by either hot shell fragments or hot spall from non penetrating impacts. IF the fuel tanks did not explode, the ignited fuel burned and caused the ammunition to explode. As a result of this study.... the Soviet High Command ordered in early 1945, that all T34 crews should refrain from using the internal fuel tanks if possible in order to lessen the likelihood that their tank would explode when hit by enemy shells. 2...... A contributor to the exploding T34 problem was the highly sensitive explosive fillers used in Russian shells, the explosives were unstable and would explode if subjected to heat from burning fuel, or violent impact from shell fragments or flying spall from non-penetrating shell impacts. It was well known and reported by Soviet tankers that the Lend Lease M4s did NOT burn and explode like the T34, and the M4s had "good, tough armor that did NOT spall like the armor on the T34s". {Dmitry Loza ... "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" }
Actually the Sherman had a very low casualty rate as all the crew positions had excellent escape routes if the tank was hit. The tank armor was not all that thin either. Later model Sherman's had 62 mm of frontal armor which given its slope was equivalent to about 100 mm.
@@danzervos7606 @Dan Zervos You do know that the big hatches for driver and ball gunner and the loaders hatch, were first installed December 1943? And a great number of Shermans still did not have them in Normandy. Before that all three man in the turret had to go through the commanders hatch. There was a reason why the Shermans were called "Tommy Cooker" in North Africa 1942. The losses of British and Canadian sherman crews were twice as high as the US sherman tank crew losses. They had to face strong german tank forces more often than the US forces. It was a British or a Canadian tanker who nocked out Wittman. The US boys had to face Tiger tanks only 4 times in the west european campaign.
@@HaVoC117X It has also been noted that British tankers did not wear helmets like American tankers did and a good proportion of tanker fatalities happened when they were not in the tank.
who ever was the engineer that designed this god forsaken machine should be found and tried for criminal neglect even though it is over 70 years too late.
+w108dab1 It was fine. Better then any other medium tank in the war including the T-34 which it handled quite nicely when they faced of directly in the 50. If anyone should be "tried" it would be the clueless ppl who have no idea what their talking about when they post about the M4 Medium Tank
+Hasaan Moyle A "cavalry tank" with much better armour protection than the Pzkpfw IV or StuG III ever had? Why in the hell would you put 2 inches of 57 degree sloped armour if all you would defeat was small arms and shrapnel? The truth is, with the 75mm it could go toe to toe with any German AFV, barring the rare heavies. Even the Pzkpfw V Panthers got their ass handed to them by outnumbered 75mm M4s, in the Battle of Arracourt.
Then please explain to me as to why the Germans referred to the Sherman as the "Tommy Cooker". The sherman is a sign that anyone who joins the military is absolutely goddamned stupid. You are all expendable .....
Feb 14, 2021. The upload, as well as the debate in the comments section, is very informative and interesting. The cut away view is priceless.
Yep, Michael Wittman's last words were "Don't worry, it's only a Tommy Coo...(BLAM!)"
Micheal got his ass blowed off
Wittman was a bad motherfucker though
All this bull dust about the Sherman has been thoroughly discredited in forums that have any decent historical research .
Exactly, Nicholas Moran has tons of great info on it.
@Dan Zervos
You do know that the big hatches for driver and ball gunner and the loaders hatch, were first installed December 1943? And a great number of Shermans still did not have them in Normandy. Before that all three man in the turret had to go through the commanders hatch. There was a reason why the Shermans were called "Tommy Cooker" in North Africa 1942. The losses of British and Canadian sherman crews were twice as high as the US sherman tank crew losses. They had to face strong german tank forces more often than the US forces. It was a British or a Canadian tanker who nocked out Wittman. The US boys had to face Tiger tanks only 4 times in the west european campaign.
Was in reference to the petrol powered Shermans which ignited far more easily than the diesels
That engine is the GM 671 two-cycle diesel used exclusively in the M4A2 Sherman. They were given via lend lease to the British and Russians. And yes, since they were two-cycle diesels, they used GM roots-type super chargers. They were installed in pairs as a twin diesel assembly. Diesels can be tough to start in cold weather (as in Russia) so they were equipped with a fire box where gasoline was burned to preheat the engine to assist in those cold weather starts.
Andrew Dalzell
Thanks for sharing the information about the Sherman GM 671 two-cycle diesel engine.
Andrew Dalzell 2 stroke diesels sound wicked
Actually the engine is a GM 6046 Twin Diesel. Two Detroit Diesel engines side-by-side tied together with an output gear box to combine the power to one output shaft to the drive train.
A two-stroke diesel?!
The detroit's gotta be one of my favorite motors
Thanks for sharing this video! I was especially interested to see how thick the armor actally was in the cutaway!
Thanks - you can also see the cutaway of Patton M-48 in my video th-cam.com/video/RJFaPJnaCS4/w-d-xo.html
Woah, woah, woah....at 2:31 is that a Rootes style supercharger? What version Sherman is this?
Judging by the reservoir tanks, its a GM Model 6046 diesel. Meaning its a M4A2. Due to the suspension and the 'ultimate' hull layout, its a M4A2(76)W HVSS.
Hmmmmm, statistically it was 25 times better ( or even higher in some cases) to be a Sherman crew member than the crew of any German tank or even the pbi!
Correct...
Wittman was inside a kraut roaster?
Looks like this cut away Sherman had the two Detroit 6-71 diesels. Some had a radial engine or a massive ford 1100ci V8 engine.
I can't see the Diesel powered Sherman as dangerous as the other two (radial and V8 Ford) which used a high octane aviation fuel?, I could be wrong.
I've heard it was known as the rolling grave.
Normal Sherman tank got to be called Ronson but not the flamethrower version 😂
Not the case
Wow, it's pretty bad to see museums repeating the BS Ronson line. Sherman burn rates were very similar to most other tanks of the time. Then they were switched over to wet ammo stowage and the burn rates dropped significantly. I would have hoped a museum was capable of basic research.
The rising Collins Foundation and Museum of the American G.I. seems to be the competent ones here as far as the M4 history goes. A lot less inaccuracy and _Deathtraps_ lore with them. As was the Portola Valley Military Vehicle Technology Foundation so I heard until it closed, unfortunately never got to see it myself before the collection was broken up.
@Dan Zervos
You do know that the big hatches for driver and ball gunner and the loaders hatch, were first installed December 1943? And a great number of Shermans still did not have them in Normandy. Before that all three man in the turret had to go through the commanders hatch. There was a reason why the Shermans were called "Tommy Cooker" in North Africa 1942. The losses of British and Canadian sherman crews were twice as high as the US sherman tank crew losses. They had to face strong german tank forces more often than the US forces. It was a British or a Canadian tanker who nocked out Wittman. The US boys had to face Tiger tanks only 4 times in the west european campaign.
watch this first....th-cam.com/video/qaPZ99a7PD4/w-d-xo.html
I agree,but sensationalism sells,and keeps the Wehraboos happy
Just ruined a perfect tank but its nice the way it was displayed.
0:01 it was cutaway as a teaching aid for tank crews but cool that it ended up in the museum for us to see.
How odd that the engine is the GM 6046 and not either the radial or the GAA. Was this cutaway originally used for overseas troops maybe? The 6046 was rarely used in US use Shermans
It was used in combat with USMC. They did use the 6046 in the M10 throughout the war.
so how do people get in tanks? Do they just go through the turret hatch, or is there another door somewhere?
Depends on the tank but mostly turret hatch
In the Sherman the driver and assistant had their own hatches. There were two hatches on top the turret. One on either side of the gun. An escape hatch as in the tank floor.
Is that at the War Museum in Ottawa?
More bad information ... this time being repeated by a "museum" no less !!!!
First off the Ronson lighter company did not use the slogan "lights every time until AFTER the war ..... throughout the 1920s, 1930s and the War years, the Ronson slogan was ......."Press it's Lit ..... Release it's Out" or "Flip it's Lit ...... Release it's Out" ........... the phrase "lights every time" did not appear in a Ronson advertisement until Late 1949 in a full page layout in "The Saturday Evening Post".
No person has ever produced any documentation of the name "Ronson" being applied to the M4 Sherman tank ***during the war***. Except that Canadian Tankers *affectionately* called their flamethrower equipped M4s "Ronsons" ..... partly due to the fact that the flame thrower equipment itself was known as "The Ronson Flame Projector".
2nd ..... There was NEVER a problem with the fuel or engines on the M4. Any person claiming that the fuel caused M4s to "burst into flames" is full of hogwash........period.
In 1943 the US Army investigated the "Burning M4s" question, and determined that in every case the cause was the ammunition. Most if not all "Burned" M4s were recovered with completely intact fuel tanks and operable engines. It was this study which brought about the "W" wet stowage improvement on later M4s ....... this was a modification where water jackets were placed around the ammunition stowage bins so that any penetration would release the water to douse the shells with water and prevent flash fires. This system worked so well that "W" modified M4s became the LEAST LIKELY tank of the war to burn when penetrated by enemy fire.
Did the Germans call the M4 a "Tommy Cooker" ?? ......... Yes ! That name was earned by the British command structure which never informed their tank crews that the incorrect stowage of ammunition was the root cause of the high number of M4s "Burning" when penetrated by enemy fire. The British High Command continued to let their tank crews believe .....falsely .... that the fuel and engine were somehow the root problem, even though this had been proven by the US Army study of 1943 to not be the case. Brit tank crews continued to carry more ammunition than could be safely stored and suffered the consequences of flash fires from the propellants being ignited by hot shell fragments from penetrations.
C JACKSON you are wrong or you are lying...www.amazon.com/Ronson-cigarette-lighter-Broadway-Limited/dp/B00LNHDO3E take a look 1929 a ronson advertisement
Jose Romero
I find this extremely interesting ...... that advert is *extremely* similar to the advert in the Saturday Evening Post 1949 which according to the American Advertising Museum was the earliest "Ronson" ad they had seen which used the phrase "Lights every time".
Have you asked TIME to validate the dating ?
I will endeavor to research it further ......
Casca Longinus higher octane means the fuel can withstand a higher pressure before combusting under the pressure high octane doesn't mean highly flammable most these myths come from "Death Traps'
@@fallout0624 Besides, the Shermans that ran on gasoline, used 80 octane fuel, in the radial, multibank, and V8.
It pains me to see the ronson myth promoted
Neat
The tommy cooker was none the less a tommy cooker, regardless of how and why and their losses against German tanks was staggering.
+Charles Rablin
What are you on about?
> *_"regardless of how and why and their losses against German tanks was staggering."_*
How so?
Nathan Peterson we gotta stop meeting like this chap.
The Germans did a great job in War 2, didn't they?
it was a usa tank
NICKNAME = WORLD WAR CHAMPS !!!!
Supercharged diesel engine ??? Must have been swapped lol !!
No, it was one of SEVERAL power units used in the Sherman family. The engine is designated by the model number. All M4A2s were built with this diesel engine. Here is a good overview:
th-cam.com/video/Z88gEaY0BeY/w-d-xo.html
You see, sir this tank was designed for drag races only. Just this version of the Sherman.
Someone needs to put a LS into a M4.
bull
Yep, a death trap for the the tank crew..Tommy Cooker sums it up..
*****
You are confusing the M4 for the T34.
The M4 Never had a problem with fuel or engine fires. The US Army study of 1943 proved that it was an ammunition stowage problem and that most "burned" M4s were recovered with completely intact fuel tanks. and just in case you have some delusion about using gasoline engines in tanks, the Germans used gasoline engines in all of their tanks. The Soviet Union was the only nation which fielded a majority of diesel engine tanks. Was diesel safer than gasoline? Possibly, but not in the war experience of the diesel engined T34.
The T34, which had unarmored fuel tanks located INSIDE the crew compartment ignited and burned at a rate that any other army would have found completely unacceptable. 82% of T34s that were penetrated by enemy shells burned ....... but wait .... that is not all .... not only did they burn, but they also EXPLODED !
A Soviet high command (STAVKA) study on the "exploding T34s problem" determined:
1.... the internal fuel tanks built up pressure and exploded when penetrated by either hot shell fragments or hot spall from non penetrating impacts. IF the fuel tanks did not explode, the ignited fuel burned and caused the ammunition to explode. As a result of this study.... the Soviet High Command ordered in early 1945, that all T34 crews should refrain from using the internal fuel tanks if possible in order to lessen the likelihood that their tank would explode when hit by enemy shells.
2...... A contributor to the exploding T34 problem was the highly sensitive explosive fillers used in Russian shells, the explosives were unstable and would explode if subjected to heat from burning fuel, or violent impact from shell fragments or flying spall from non-penetrating shell impacts.
It was well known and reported by Soviet tankers that the Lend Lease M4s did NOT burn and explode like the T34, and the M4s had "good, tough armor that did NOT spall like the armor on the T34s". {Dmitry Loza ... "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" }
Actually the Sherman had a very low casualty rate as all the crew positions had excellent escape routes if the tank was hit. The tank armor was not all that thin either. Later model Sherman's had 62 mm of frontal armor which given its slope was equivalent to about 100 mm.
Death trap
Laughs in exploding t34
@@danzervos7606 @Dan Zervos
You do know that the big hatches for driver and ball gunner and the loaders hatch, were first installed December 1943? And a great number of Shermans still did not have them in Normandy. Before that all three man in the turret had to go through the commanders hatch. There was a reason why the Shermans were called "Tommy Cooker" in North Africa 1942. The losses of British and Canadian sherman crews were twice as high as the US sherman tank crew losses. They had to face strong german tank forces more often than the US forces. It was a British or a Canadian tanker who nocked out Wittman. The US boys had to face Tiger tanks only 4 times in the west european campaign.
@@HaVoC117X It has also been noted that British tankers did not wear helmets like American tankers did and a good proportion of tanker fatalities happened when they were not in the tank.
who ever was the engineer that designed this god forsaken machine should be found and tried for criminal neglect even though it is over 70 years too late.
+w108dab1 It was fine. Better then any other medium tank in the war including the T-34 which it handled quite nicely when they faced of directly in the 50.
If anyone should be "tried" it would be the clueless ppl who have no idea what their talking about when they post about the M4 Medium Tank
+Hasaan Moyle A "cavalry tank" with much better armour protection than the Pzkpfw IV or StuG III ever had? Why in the hell would you put 2 inches of 57 degree sloped armour if all you would defeat was small arms and shrapnel?
The truth is, with the 75mm it could go toe to toe with any German AFV, barring the rare heavies. Even the Pzkpfw V Panthers got their ass handed to them by outnumbered 75mm M4s, in the Battle of Arracourt.
76mm you mean? 75 was the short barrel with dismal AP performance, passable HE.
Then please explain to me as to why the Germans referred to the Sherman as the "Tommy Cooker". The sherman is a sign that anyone who joins the military is absolutely goddamned stupid. You are all expendable .....
w108dab1 The name was applied to British and British used tanks as a whole.
Also how is it a sign?